M14 "Completely Inferior" to M1?

[Smersh]

I keep seeing this line cited over and over again about the M14 taken from some 60s era study. But what is never explained is in what ways the M14 is "completely inferior" to the M1.

If anything its an improvement over the M1. Isn't it?

[Hollis]

Actually the M14 was better in some ways. Basically the same platform as the M1 Garand, except with the advantage of detachable 20 rd Mag and select fire.

[Skutatos]

I've heard some complaints about the sights being fragile on the M14 or not holding zero as well, something like that. That is about the only real complaint I have heard vs the M1 though.

[Cstafford]

Idk about the M14, but isnt the M1 a pain in the ass to take apart?

[LineDoggie]

As to Sights, M1/M14 share the exact same rear sight parts

Front sight on the 14 is smaller and thinner so technically maybe more fragile.

Select fire on an M14 is worthless unless you have the M14A2 stock, Muzzle Stabilizer, & Bipod. And even then not as good as a BAR.

Part of the trade off with the 14 was a thinner barrel than the Garand, and the furniture was lighter as well.

[Smersh]

A possibly more fragile front sight, doesn't seem to be a huge disadvantage. So how did that report by Comptroller of the Defense Department in 1962, come to the conclusion that the M14 was "completely inferior".

[supercontra]

Sounds like another case of "everything was better before"
M14 > M16
M1 > M14
Musket > M1
Bow > Musket etc...

[Smersh]

Sounds like another case of "everything was better before"
M14 > M16
M1 > M14
Musket > M1
Bow > Musket etc...
Rock>Bow
Its somewhat hard to imagine, that the DoD would come out with a report using this kind of logic.

It could be the from the kind of thinking, where because the M14 had a larger magazine, 20 vs 8, and full auto capability. Soldiers were more ****e to waste ammo, not aim as carefully. So in that way, the M14 was inferior?

[Migs]

Pkm>

m14 > m16
m1 > m14
musket > m1
bow > musket etc...
................

[Panchito12]

Sounds like another case of "everything was better before"
M14 > M16
M1 > M14
Musket > M1
Bow > Musket etc...

Rock>Bow

Throwing Eve > Rock

[the_13th_redneck]

Just try controlling an M14 on rock and roll.

[Smersh]

Just try controlling an M14 on rock and roll.

An M1 can't "rock and roll" at all.

[the_13th_redneck]

That's the point.
Just treat the M14 like a semi-automatic weapon.

[LineDoggie]

Remember the M14 was supposed to replace not just the M1 Garand
But the
M1928A1 Thompson Submachinegun
M1/M1A1 TSMG
M3 Grease gun
M3A1 Greaser
M1Carbine
M1A1 Carbine
M2 Carbine
M3 Carbine
M1918A2 BAR

A Version of the M14 called the M15 was supposed to have been the BAR replacement. It had a Much Heavier Barrel, Bipod and ancillary features to serve as the Auto Rifle in the Squad. It was Cancelled and the job given to regular M14's with a Bipod.

[LineDoggie]

An M1 can't "rock and roll" at all.
The T20 Variant did

http://www.museum.nps.gov/spar/vfpcgi.exe?IDCFile=/spar/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=10911,DATABASE=objects,ORDERBY=CATNBR,LISTIDC=/SPAR/BROWSER.IDC,RECORDMAX=10,RECNO=2266,WORDS=m14

[CG51]

Grease was around even in the 80's.

[gaijinsamurai]

20 rd detachable magazine> 8 rd clip.

[Panchito12]

Just try controlling an M14 on rock and roll.


....after the 3rd round an M14 on full auto becomes an anti-aircraft weapon.

[brainplay]

Bolt is slight different too. They reworked it and added a roller to replace the M1's rail for faster rate of fire. And the firing pin and ejector and pinned to the extractor. As quiet a few people found seen, if you run the M14 too hard risk that pin breaking and throwing your extractor a few feet, angling the bolt wrong, and your rifle crapping parts (fp and ejector). Although rare (thought to be from cheap cast parts only but later discovered that forged are as susceptible) as very few people ever run the M14 hard (no rock and roll) this is still a well known problem. Changes were made to the op rod and the gas system. Both were cut down for M14 to increase cycling.

Now imagine you're comparing your old trusty to this new contraption which is supposed to replace it. Calling it inferior isn't that far of a stretch from that perspective. And old trusty is a big thing for the military. Remember, there are still units out there issuing M1911's with 7rd mags. Yeah they're great to shoot but so are some of the higher capacity .45's out there. Maybe when the M&P 45 has a few more years under it's belt will it perk interest.

[Hollis]

There is also, What I was trained in > than the new stuff (Means I have to be retrained.)

[USMCRTop]

Carried an M1 in ROTC and M14 in boot camp-biggest difference ? Not getting your thumb smashed by the bolt when you let the bolt go home in the M14-the dreaded "M1 thumb".

[the_13th_redneck]

....after the 3rd round an M14 on full auto becomes an anti-aircraft weapon.

For chrissakes that is my point.

[James]

A lot of Marines who took the '03 to Guadalcanal in 1942 snorted at the Garands the Army guys brought.

I think the M1 is certainly more robust than an M14, but the M14 has a larger magazine capacity and is lighter.

Smersh, if you read the report you mention, why don't you tell us why the M14 was thought to be inferior.

[California Joe]

For chrissakes that is my point.

Pretty sure he was accentuating your point. Agreeing with you, as it were. Therefore, I would assume, that he did indeed get your point.

[Hollis]

A minor clarification, Both rifles are Grrrrrrrrrrrrrreat. In their realm of greatness there is no word "inferiors".

[Migs]

A minor clarification, Both rifles are Grrrrrrrrrrrrrreat. In their realm of greatness there is no word "inferiors".
^this
Both guns were made during two different era's in which both performed well, there is no "better".

[Smersh]

Smersh, if you read the report you mention, why don't you tell us why the M14 was thought to be inferior.

I can't seem to find the said report. Which is cited frequently to claim that the M14 was not only inferior to the M16, as a squad small arm, but was also inferior to the M1. I would be interested to read it, if anybody can find it.

All the criticisms I've read of the M14 were that it was too old fashioned, and couldn't compete with the new concepts coming out in the 60s, which culminated in the adoption of the 5.56 cartridge and M16. But I can't find any substantial information, which explains how that report and in what ways, the M14 could be "inferior" to the older M1 which it replaced, and was largely based on.

I wrote in a previous message, that since the gun from a technical point of view is superior the M1. It makes me think, that report must have took other factors into consideration. They could have been from the old-school marksmen, fire discipline, round frugality camp. Which would see a gun capable of automatic fire, and a 20 round magazine as a waste of ammunition and detrimental the long range marksmen ideal. This is only my speculation, the report could say anything.

If that was the case, I'm sure then those same people would find the Springfield 1903 to be superior to the M1. Although that school of thinking could have accepted that semi-auto was more handy then having to work a bolt between each shot.

[Young-kiwi]

I'd be more interested in a comparison between the M14 and the Beretta BM-59

I think that would be a clearer comparison than the M1 vs M14

[Hollis]

I'd be more interested in a comparison between the M14 and the Beretta BM-59

I think that would be a clearer comparison than the M1 vs M14


They are similar, I had a BM 59, it is nice conversion for the M1 Garand. They were all a part of the development of firearms at that time. The BM-59 was a less expensive version of the M14, it allowed for a change over using parts already available. Obviously the new rifle had changes that improved them over the previous model.

[Smersh]

So the Defense Department comes out with this report in the 60s, it gets picked up by writers, other writers quote those writer, then turns up over and over again. Yet nobody knows, at least in this thread, what the report means, by saying the M14 is "completely inferior" to the M1.

I thought there was some big flaw, as compared to the M1, I wasn't getting. But It could be some bogus interpretation, repeated over and over again. I find that many times something just becomes accepted fact, if its appeared in print somewhere, by someone.

[wilhelm]

20 rd detachable magazine> 8 rd clip.

Doesn't the M1 also make a sexy sound when it fires its 8th round?

[gaijinsamurai]

^ Perhaps, to the enemy soldier who hears it, and charges the garand-carrying soldier with a now empty weapon. Of course, most of us have heard of the famous trick wherein a clip is tossed on the ground to make the noise in order to lure the enemy out of his cover.

While in my opinion, the M14 is undoubtedly superior to the M1, I believe the M1 was superior for its time. During its era the M1 Garand was without a doubt the greatest rifle in the world (some might argue for the MP44/Stg43), but IMO the same cannot be said for the M14. While other countries were making great strides in the advancement of firearms development with the Kalashnikov, FAL, and CETME/G3, the US merely made modifications to thie 1930's-designed M1s. And of course, the M14 had a relatively short lifespan as the primary service rifle, being replaced by the M16 only a few years later.

[LineDoggie]

8th round Ping is so overrated as a Myth

Sure the Garand clip ejecting makes a distinctive noise

but they myth that now Kurt or Yoshi know Joe is empty and rush up to bayonet him is Horse****.

First of all try hearing that ping in a Firefight, BAR's, Thompsons, Carbines firing, Grenades exploding, Mortars rounds landing Machineguns firing and your going to hear this ping above all that racket. As a Reenactor Ive yet to hear someone elses M1 Ping during the mock battles from the sound of everything else.

Add to that, an Experienced Rifleman can reload a Garand very fast, and even if you hear the right guy and charge him, his buddies likely aint empty and all too willing to shoot you full of .30 cal holes.

[ayanami_tard]

....after the 3rd round an M14 on full auto becomes an anti-aircraft weapon.

muzzle climb isn't unique to just m14

[LineDoggie]

The Combination of Light Weight, Recoil Impulse, High Cyclic Rate on Full Auto and Bore/Stock alignment make the M14 climb more than say an FN FAL.

[gaijinsamurai]

8th round Ping is so overrated as a Myth

Sure the Garand clip ejecting makes a distinctive noise

but they myth that now Kurt or Yoshi know Joe is empty and rush up to bayonet him is Horse****.

First of all try hearing that ping in a Firefight, BAR's, Thompsons, Carbines firing, Grenades exploding, Mortars rounds landing Machineguns firing and your going to hear this ping above all that racket. As a Reenactor Ive yet to hear someone elses M1 Ping during the mock battles from the sound of everything else.

Add to that, an Experienced Rifleman can reload a Garand very fast, and even if you hear the right guy and charge him, his buddies likely aint empty and all too willing to shoot you full of .30 cal holes.

Yeah, I suppose you're right, L-D.

[XASA]

I can't say if the M-14 was inferior to the M-1 because I never shot the latter. But I trained and was issued a M-14 for four of my six years in the Army. When you pulled the trigger, it always went bang. With open sights you could hit a man sized target at 300 meters (we didn't trained pass that distance). We weren't issued the weapon with the selector switch because everyone knew it was useless on automatic; however, you could shoot 20 aimed shots pretty quickly on semi-automatic with a good chance of hitting what you were shooting at. The 7.62 NATO round could go through car doors, walls, heavy foliage and even cinder blocks, and one round was usually enough to incapacitate even if it wasn't in the kill zone. To those of us who trained and carried it, it wasn't heavy; in fact, a tricked out M-4 is heavier. Recoil wasn't a problem. It was easy to disassembable and clean. With a bayonet mounted, it was long enough and sturdy enough to put a hurt on someone.

When we switched over to the M-16 it was a bit of a let down. With open sights, we seldom hit anything past 200 meters. It was fragile compared to the M-14. It was more difficult to disassemble and had to be kept impeccably clean. Being red blooded American boys who were raised on gangster and war movies, we loved the full automatic feature but quickly learned that "spraying and praying" didn't guarantee you hits past 25 meters; you had to use trigger discipline and shoot three or four round bursts in order to guarantee a hit. Having said all that, the M-1, M-14 and M-16 were created at different times for different tactics and for different terrains. They all are fine weapons but comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. I put more faith in the man behind the rifle than the rifle itself. If and when you go to war, unless you are in some high speed Special Operations unit, you shoot what you are issued. If you train well with that weapon and keep it clean, you should be all right whether it is a piece of s**t old AK or a spanking new SCAR.

[Corrupt]

one round was usually enough to incapacitate even if it wasn't in the kill zone.

With open sights, we seldom hit anything past 200 meters.

If and when you go to war, unless you are in some high speed Special Operations unit, you shoot what you are issued. If you train well with that weapon and keep it clean, you should be all right whether it is a piece of s**t old AK or a spanking new SCAR.

1) Never heard that term before (apart from with hand grenades and artillary) Presume you're referring to the head and chest area full of vital organs?
2) Surprised by that. Any reason for this you can think of. Just thinking that I can relialbly hit targets at 3-400m with a Cadet Gp or L85A2 with irons sights on it, what was wrong with the early M16?
3) An excellent point

[XASA]

1) Never heard that term before (apart from with hand grenades and artillary) Presume you're referring to the head and chest area full of vital organs?
2) Surprised by that. Any reason for this you can think of. Just thinking that I can relialbly hit targets at 3-400m with a Cadet Gp or L85A2 with irons sights on it, what was wrong with the early M16?
3) An excellent point

Good questions:

1) I was referring to the head and chest area. If my use of the term "kill zone" is incorrect it is because it was the first thing that popped into my mind. I was discharged in 1971, so forgive an old veteran for not being familiar with current terminology. I have no doubt that today’s teenagers who play video games or airsoft can rattle off the correct terminology better than I can, which is cool. My point was that a 7.62 NATO round could incapacitate someone even if they were just wounded. I will add to that thought by stating that there was no need for multiple hits if they were hit in the head or chest with one round. Something I'm sure most here already know.

2) I am speaking from personal experience. Nothing was "wrong" with the early M-16s if you kept it clean. If I remember correctly, our qualifying ranges had pop up targets set at 25, 50, 100, 200, 250 and 300 meters, so with my failing memory, it could have been at 250 meters that I had problems. I shot Expert with the M-14 and only Sharpshooter with the M-16, so it might boil down simply to the fact that you are a better shot than me. It could also be due to a number of other reasons: Current ammunition has greatly improved over the M193 Ball we were issued back then starting with the heavier Belgian SS-109 that was adopted as NATO standard almost 30 years ago. The original M-16A1 was manufactured and adopted in the early 1960s and the current M-16A2 and M-16A4 decades later, and they have better sights and heavier barrels. The L85A2 is essentially a bullpup AR-18, which was designed to be better than the M-16A1 by Armalite and would have been an excellent issue weapon if the M-16 wasn't already being manufactured in large numbers. The L85A2 also came along 20 years after the M-16A1, and there were some major improvements, including those made by HK, over that period to improve accuracy and reliability. Again, my point was that the M-14 is much more accurate.

There is no way I want my comments to be interpreted as one weapon being better than the other. Everyone has their own personal preferences when it comes to firearms. I was just pointing out from experience that the M-14 was a fine rifle that did what it was designed to do. The fact that it has been pulled out of reserve and re-issued for the GWOT says a lot. I cannot think of any other American issued rifle that was re-issued 40 years after it was replaced. The M-1 is also a fine weapon and in the right hands could probably still wreak havoc on today’s battlefields.

[Corrupt]

Good questions:

1) I was referring to the head and chest area. If my use of the term "kill zone" is incorrect it is because it was the first thing that popped into my mind. I was discharged in 1971, so forgive an old veteran for not being familiar with current terminology.

2) I am speaking from personal experience. Nothing was "wrong" with the early M-16s if you kept it clean. If I remember correctly, our qualifying ranges had pop up targets set at 25, 50, 100, 200, 250 and 300 meters, so with my failing memory, it could have been at 250 meters that I had problems. I shot Expert with the M-14 and only Sharpshooter with the M-16, so it might boil down simply to the fact that you are a better shot than me.


No worries. You're more qualified than I am. It seemed logical to be the head and the chest, just thought I'd check

Ok cool, I wasnt disagreeing, i know very very little about the weapons of the period. I was just surprised that the 16 wasnt at least as accurate as the 14 (out to 3-400m at least, obviously 7.62 has the edge as range increases) Thanks v much for the info (although I doubt if it came to it a spotty 20 y/o crab wannabe would be as accurate as yourself regardless of the weapons I was issued)

[Smersh]

Although this thread is not about the M14 vs the M16.

I would think with equal sights, and equal skill of the shooter, at 300 to 400 meters the accuracy of the 5.56 M16 and 7.62 M14 would be about the same.

[LineDoggie]

Came across one nugget of info about the M-14 today in the latest American Rifleman issue.
One of the first units equipped with the M-14 in 1957 was the 101st Airborne division.

Apparently the M14 (even when secured in the M-1950 Weapons case)had a Propensity for Bent Barrels upon landing (PLF's)in Parachute Jumps compared to the Garand.

[T-5 Killer]

^ Interesting info

[JUNKHO]

Came across one nugget of info about the M-14 today in the latest American Rifleman issue.
One of the first units equipped with the M-14 in 1957 was the 101st Airborne division.

Apparently the M14 (even when secured in the M-1950 Weapons case)had a Propensity for Bent Barrels upon landing (PLF's)in Parachute Jumps compared to the Garand.

"The T44 competed successfully against the T47 (a modified T25) and the FN FAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL) (T48). This led to the T44's adoption by the U.S. military as the M14 in 1957. Springfield Armory began tooling a new production line in 1958 and delivered the first service rifles to the U.S. Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) in July 1959. However, long production delays resulted in the 101st Airborne Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_Airborne_Division) being the only unit in the Army fully equipped with the M14 by the end of 1961. The Fleet Marine Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Marine_Force) finally completed the change from M1 Garand to M14 in late 1962. Springfield Armory records reflect that M14 manufacture ended as TRW, fulfilling its second contract, delivered its final production increment in Fiscal Year 1965 (1July '64 - 30June '65). The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104"
(more at)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

like you said - 101st got them first.

[T-5 Killer]

"... The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104"
[/url]

$104 WOW!!!!!Whats the unit price of a M16/M4 these days?

[gaijinsamurai]

Came across one nugget of info about the M-14 today in the latest American Rifleman issue.
One of the first units equipped with the M-14 in 1957 was the 101st Airborne division.

Apparently the M14 (even when secured in the M-1950 Weapons case)had a Propensity for Bent Barrels upon landing (PLF's)in Parachute Jumps compared to the Garand.

IIRC, David Hackworth, in his book "About Face" talks about being in one of the first units to be issued the M14. I know he was in the 101st in Vietnam, but seem to recall him being in another unit at the time of the M14 adoption. I read that book over 20 years ago, so my recollection is not the best.

[LineDoggie]

$104 WOW!!!!!Whats the unit price of a M16/M4 these days?Well IIRC back in the 80's a M16A1 cost the Govt $350.00 due to volume sales. An M-60 would set you back $1,600.00 if lost , stolen or Destroyed through Negligence.

[Smersh]

" The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104".

People say only the Chinese can produce low cost manufactured products.

[JPBaz]

". The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104"
(more at)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
.

1.3MM rifles made! I was wondering where all those rifles went and discovered this unfortunate fact:

Since 1970 the United States military has destroyed or demilled nearly 750,000 M-14s. While some were destroyed during the Carter administration most survived in arsenal storage through the Cold War. This was because of the fact that keeping an obsolete but still effective weapon will always be infinitely cheaper than producing a new weapon. The end of the Cold War lead to a slaughter of the M-14s that had survived. No less than 479,367 M14 rifles were destroyed in 1993-94 alone and an unknown number were de-milled (cut with a blowtorch and welded shut) then transferred to JROTC units as non-firing drill weapons.

Read more at Suite101: Last of the Surviving M-14 Battle Rifles: The M14 Obsolete But Irreplaceable (http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/last_of_the_surviving_m14_battle_rifles#ixzz0oQZZhttx) http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/last_of_the_surviving_m14_battle_rifles#ixzz0oQZZhttx

What a waste...

[Death.]

Idk about the M14, but isnt the M1 a pain in the ass to take apart?

Definitely not.


As far as reloading the M1, the M1 thumb is very easy to avoid, usually when you place the clip in the bolt won't advance until you give it a tap (hangs up on the rear of the first round). And if you do it the proper way, you would have the back edge of you hand holding back on the op-rod while you push the clip in with your thumb.

The only thing you really need to watch out for is dislodging the operating rod, I don't know if it's the same on the M14, but if you find yourself in a situation where you need to pull the oprod back to get the bolt out of battery, if you apply upwards force you can pop it out of the track and cause some serious problems; for that reason you're supposed to have your hand palm up while pulling back on the oprod, to make sure there isn't any upwards pressure.

[T-5 Killer]

1.3MM rifles made! I was wondering where all those rifles went and discovered this unfortunate fact:

Since 1970 the United States military has destroyed or demilled nearly 750,000 M-14s. While some were destroyed during the Carter administration most survived in arsenal storage through the Cold War. This was because of the fact that keeping an obsolete but still effective weapon will always be infinitely cheaper than producing a new weapon. The end of the Cold War lead to a slaughter of the M-14s that had survived. No less than 479,367 M14 rifles were destroyed in 1993-94 alone and an unknown number were de-milled (cut with a blowtorch and welded shut) then transferred to JROTC units as non-firing drill weapons.

Read more at Suite101: Last of the Surviving M-14 Battle Rifles: The M14 Obsolete But Irreplaceable (http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/last_of_the_surviving_m14_battle_rifles#ixzz0oQZZhttx) http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/last_of_the_surviving_m14_battle_rifles#ixzz0oQZZhttx

What a waste...

WOW that is horrible! I wish I had not read that.

[Euroamerican]

Yep. Thanks Bill Clinton.

[gaijinsamurai]

Bill Clinton deserves to have the bolt of an M14 slam home on his ********s for doing that.

[LineDoggie]

Bill Clinton deserves to have the bolt of an M14 slam home on his ********s for doing that.Ask Hillary then, she's got them.................

[deagle]

if the m1 (8 rounds) was lethal, the m14 is almost 3x as lethal....thats an improvement in firepower.

the m1 was "the rifle that won the war" b/c it out-shot bolt-actions.

the m14 trys to keep pace with automatic rifles, so the m1 garand has been rendered obsolete for military applications, conventionally at least (can't say if an insurgent would use it )

you can't get garand thumb b/c its loaded from the bottom

and the design was intended to address the inadequacies of the m1, so almost by default its better. better than other rifles is still debatable.

[maxnharry]

"The T44 competed successfully against the T47 (a modified T25) and the FN FAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL) (T48). This led to the T44's adoption by the U.S. military as the M14 in 1957. Springfield Armory began tooling a new production line in 1958 and delivered the first service rifles to the U.S. Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) in July 1959. However, long production delays resulted in the 101st Airborne Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_Airborne_Division) being the only unit in the Army fully equipped with the M14 by the end of 1961. The Fleet Marine Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Marine_Force) finally completed the change from M1 Garand to M14 in late 1962. Springfield Armory records reflect that M14 manufacture ended as TRW, fulfilling its second contract, delivered its final production increment in Fiscal Year 1965 (1July '64 - 30June '65). The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104"
(more at)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

like you said - 101st got them first.

BTW, $104 in 1965 is $700 today. A new M4 costs Uncle Sucker around $800, so nearly same same.

[gaijinsamurai]

Ask Hillary then, she's got them.................

Heh, heh, ain't that the truth!

She probably gives Billy permission to get some tail in exchange for his help in furthering her political career.

[sct1886]

Just try controlling an M14 on rock and roll.

This is true of all 7.62x51mm rifles... G3, FAL ect.

[Smersh]

BTW, $104 in 1965 is $700 today. A new M4 costs Uncle Sucker around $800, so nearly same same.

Valid Point. I didn't realize there was that much inflation in that period of time. what is that like 600%?

[sct1886]

The Combination of Light Weight, Recoil Impulse, High Cyclic Rate on Full Auto and Bore/Stock alignment make the M14 climb more than say an FN FAL.

I cannot imagine much. The full auto FAL I shot was uncontrollable after about 4 rounds.

[sct1886]

I own both weapons and have shot thousands of rounds thru both. If I had to carry one into a dangerous situation it would be the M14. IMOP both are good firearms. The M1 is especially excellent considering the age. The M14 simply has a bigger magazine and slightly easier to clean. IMOP the real travesty was not adopting the AR10.

[H2O MAN]

So the Defense Department comes out with this report in the 60s, it gets picked up by writers, other writers quote those writer, then turns up over and over again. Yet nobody knows, at least in this thread, what the report means, by saying the M14 is "completely inferior" to the M1.

I thought there was some big flaw, as compared to the M1, I wasn't getting. But It could be some bogus interpretation, repeated over and over again. I find that many times something just becomes accepted fact, if its appeared in print somewhere, by someone.

I have never read any article that says the M14 is "completely inferior" to the M1.

I have spent some quality time with the M1 and I loved it, but I own semi-auto M14s and no M1s or AR10s.

[gaijinsamurai]

To be honest, I can't see how anyone could say the M14 (or M1A) is inferior to the M1 Garand. The argument, if there even is one, cannot be backed up by anything of substance. How can someone think that feeding 8-rd clips into a rifle, while the bolt needs to stay to the rear, is of any tactical advantage to a 20 rd magazine? For all practical purposes, the 7.62 NATO round is performs just as well to the average infantryman as the .30-06, and the rifle weighs less. How can these traits be inferior?

[ayanami_tard]

i thought M1 used .30 calibre?

[gaijinsamurai]

.30-06, .308 (and 7.62 NATO), and .300 Winchester magnum are all .30 caliber. In fact, they are all the same bullet, with the only difference being the case.

.338 Winchester magnum, .338 Lapua, and even .30 carbine are also .30 calibers, but of differing sizes.

The M1 carbine uses .30 carbine and the M1 Garand uses .30-06. Huge difference between the two.